get_blueprint_nodes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by explaining return shapes, graph_name special values, and the effect of include_hidden_pins. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect free, though 'Return' and the 'before editing' guidance strongly imply it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but organized: a one-line summary, usage guidance, parameter definitions, return structure, knowledge-base pointer, and example. Each section earns its place and the key behavior is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only graph inspection tool with 3 parameters, the description covers usage context, parameter semantics, return formats for both single-graph and all-graphs modes, and provides a concrete example. Nothing an agent needs to call it successfully is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: blueprint_name with an example, graph_name with default and special values, and include_hidden_pins with its meaning. The Args section adds substantial meaning beyond the bare input schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence, 'Return every node in a Blueprint graph with full pin data,' is a specific verb-resource combination that clearly states both the scope (every node) and the depth (full pin data). It also lists the exact fields returned, which differentiates it from siblings like get_blueprint_functions or get_blueprint_graphs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use this before editing a graph,' giving a clear operational context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the full when/when-not bar.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.